Following is an article which was published in News
International, Karachi.The author of following paper is Asad Rahman.This article
is on this website thanks to Mr. Amanullah Zehri.

Part1 Never a part of India

The
political, economic, social and cultural discrimination that Balochistan's
people are facing today is nothing new and has been going on since the very
inception of Pakistan. This discrimination today has taken on even more sinister
overtones leading to a situation similar to that which pertained in 1970-71 in
respect of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. The fact is that it is not the Baloch
that have not accepted suzerainty of Pakistan over them but it is the Pakistani
establishment and state that has never accepted the Baloch as rightful, legal,
patriotic citizens of Pakistan. The Baloch supported the movement for an
independent Muslim state in the Indian subcontinent even before the 1940
resolution. Unfortunately our history books, establishment and governments have
never recognised through publication of the real facts, nor appreciated the
Baloch contributions to the emergence of Pakistan as an independent state. I, (a
Punjabi), have lived for nine years, 1971 to 1980, amongst the most orthodox
Baloch tribes, eating the same food, wearing the same clothes, sleeping in the
same beddings, suffering the same illnesses, drinking the same unhygienic water,
as the common Baloch. I have studied the language and read, write and speak it
as fluently as a Marri or Bughti Baloch. I have come to love these people like
my brothers and sisters for the respect, hospitality and honour that they have
given me over the years and still do. The pathetic and abject poverty of the
Baloch have compelled me to take up their just cause and demands to be treated
as patriotic, legal, equal citizens of Pakistan. These demands are not only
confined to Balochistan but are also representative of rural Sindh, NWFP
especially the south, South Punjab and the Northern areas, which areas
constitute approximately 75% of Pakistan's territory. The need for such a debate
is being acutely felt today because of the dangerous political and economic
conditions prevailing in Balochistan that are reinforcing the anti-state
separatist forces which are spreading perceptions of ruthless exploitation by
Punjabis, as a whole, amongst the common Baloch. Historically, Balochistan or
Kalat, has never been a part of India. Of the early history of the state little
or nothing is known. The first distinct account, which we have, is from Arrian,
who narrates the march of Alexander through this region. In the 8th century, an
army of the Caliphate traversed the country. The present dynasty was founded by
Kambar, a leader of the mountain tribes. After various successes, the
Kambarianis at length possessed themselves the sovereignty of a considerable
portion of the fruitful plain of Gandava. It was about this time that Nadir Shah
advanced from Persia to the invasion of Hindustan, and the Khan of Kalat, who
helped the Shah with men and money, was by a firman appointed "Beglar Begi"
(Prince of Princes) of all Baloch tribes. On the death of Nadir Shah, the Khan
of Kalat acknowledged the title of the King of Kabul, Ahmed Shah Durrani. In
1758, however, the Khan declared himself entirely independent, upon which Ahmed
Shah dispatched a force against him under one of his ministers. This expedition
terminated in a treaty of peace, by which the Khan agreed to furnish troops to
assist the Kabul armies, and the Afghan King in return, agreed to pay a cash
allowance. From that time till 1839, when the British army advanced through the
Bolan Pass to Afghanistan, Kalat was completely independent owing no allegiance
to any authority in India or elsewhere. The British government in India never
claimed the doctrine of paramountcy was applicable to its relations with Kalat;
nor has the Khan ever admitted that the powers of paramountcy could be exercised
against him and his government. On the contrary, several representatives of the
British colonial government described Kalat as a sovereign and independent
state. In 1872, Sir WL Merewether, in charge of the British Government's
relations with Kalat, wrote: "There cannot, in my opinion, be the least
doubt of the course which should be followed with regard to Kalat, or
Balochistan as it should be correctly termed. His Highness the Khan is the de
facto and de jure Ruler of that country. We have treaty engagements with him
under which, he is bound to keep his subjects from injuring British territory or
people, to protect trade etc. But the treaty is with him as ruler only, and
under none of the engagements are we called upon to enter directly into the
manner in which he carries on his government." Sir Bartle Frere, another
recognised British authority on Kalat, held the same view. Dealing with the
British government vis-a-vis Kalat, Sir Bartle wrote in 1876: "It was a
cardinal rule to attempt no disintegration of the Khan of Kalat's sovereignty,
whether nominal or real, over the Baloch tribes, but rather by every means in
our power to uphold his authority. The Khan was regarded as our independent
ally, free to act as he pleased in internal affairs, but externally subordinate
to the English government in all that could affect anything beyond his own
borders. We dealt with Kalat as far as we could for Belgium and
Switzerland." This policy was insisted upon by the government of India
against the wishes of the local officers even during the years of anarchy and
discord, which prevailed in Kalat till the conclusion of the treaty of 1876.
Lord Salisbury, the then secretary of State for India, wrote as follows to the
Governor General-in-Council: "Armed intervention would appear an unfriendly
act towards a state with which our relations have, until recently been cordial,
while it would probably entail a prolonged occupation of the country, and might
involve ulterior results of a serious kind in other quarters. His Majesty's
Government trust that an early opportunity may be taken of again placing the
relations between the Government of India and the Khan of Kalat on the friendly
footing provided for by the Treaty of 1854, and thereby reestablish a position
of affairs desirable in the interests of the British Government, and essential
to the continued existence of Kalat as an independent state." It is,
however, no doubt true, that the Government of India Act, 1935, treats Kalat as
an Indian state and provides representation for it in the Federal Legislature,
but the state was never consulted in the drafting of the Act, nor was it a party
to it in any manner. The territories of the Kalat State being outside the limits
of the legislative authority of the British parliament, the Act could not be
held binding on the state. Nevertheless, the Khan of Kalat lodged a protest
against the provisions of the Act. In a personal letter to the Khan of Kalat,
His Excellency the Crown Representative assured him that such reaffirmation was
unnecessary and that His Excellency recognised the treaty of 1876 as fully valid
in every respect, and that it would henceforth form the basis of the relations
between the British Government and the Kalat State. The views of the Government
of Kalat regarding the future position of the state at the time are as follows:
In view of the forgoing considerations, the Government of Kalat maintains, and
they are supported in this by the unanimous will of the subjects of the state:
That the Kalat State is an independent sovereign state whose relations with the
British Government are governed by the Treaty of 1876; that its Indian
associations are merely due to its connections with the British Government; that
Kalat being an independent state, the Khan, his government, and his people can
never agree to Kalat being included in any form of Indian Union; and that with
the termination of the treaty with the British Government, the Kalat State will
revert to its pre-treaty position of complete independence and will be free to
choose its own course for the future. The Khan and his government are, however,
anxious to continue friendly and amicable relations with India and will always
be glad to enter into an alliance with any government, which succeeds the
British government in India on the basis of strictest reciprocity and mutual
recognition of independence. This thus was the political position of Balochistan
right up to the partition of the subcontinent. These treaties are all available
for scrutiny in the Pakistan Archives, Balochistan Gazetteers and the British
Museum of History.